Agenda, decisions and minutes

At this point Members are asked to declare any personal or prejudicial interests they may have in the business on this agenda.

Members were invited to declare at this point in the meeting any personal or prejudicial interests they might have in the business on the agenda.

Councillor D’Agorne declared a personal non-prejudicial interest in agenda items 4, 5, 6 and 7 as a member of the Cycle Touring Club (CTC) and the York Cycle Campaign.

To approve and sign the minutes of the last meeting of the Executive Members for City Strategy and Advisory Panel held on 8 September 2008.

RESOLVED:             That the minutes of the last meeting of the Panel held on 8 September 2008 be approved and signed by the Chair and the Executive Members as a correct record.

At this point in the meeting members of the public who have registered their wish to speak regarding an item on the agenda or an issue within the Panel’s remit can do so. Anyone who wishes to register or requires further information is requested to contact the Democracy Officer on the contact details listed at the foot of this agenda. The deadline for registering is Friday 17 October 2008 at 5.00 pm.

It was reported that there had been two registrations to speak at the meeting under the Council’s Public Participation Scheme regarding agenda item 4 (Blossom Street Multi Modal Study – Feasibility).

Paul Hepworth spoke as a cyclist who regularly used the Blossom Street corridor. He noted that the Cycling Touring Club had not been consulted on the proposals due to time constraints.

He then went on to congratulate Officers and Halcrow on the comprehensive report. He stated that there were three points he wished to raise, the first regarding difficulties that cyclists travelling outbound through Micklegate Bar sometimes had in reaching the ‘green box’ at the traffic signals when the centre arch was blocked. He pointed out that some cyclists chose to divert through the outbound pedestrian archway instead. He questioned whether there was any scope to legalise this with a cyclist filter lane under this arch. His second point related to the fact that Blossom Street’s inbound footpath was often illegally used by some cyclists in both directions but he recognised that this was partly due to problems experienced by cyclists in safely using the outbound lanes. He asked if there was scope to add a cycle lane between the two outbound carriageways. Finally he referred to the reports reference to the value of providing alternative cycle routes which would avoid Blossom Street for some journeys and stated that the original planning brief for York Central included the use of Cinder Lane for reaching parts of Holgate and Acomb but he pointed out that this route would require additional works to encourage use.

Councillor Merrett, as Local Member, stated that the three Micklegate members had submitted their comments on this study but that they had not been reported.

He went on to state that he also welcomed an examination of this problem area as it gave members the opportunity to improve the situation. Although he did raised concerns over the boundary of the study area which only reached the Holgate Road junction as there were substantial issues he felt required addressing. In particular in relation to risks to pedestrians at peak times and problems with bus’s over running. He felt this could be improved by changing the frequency of pedestrian phases at the lights and further investigation of pedestrian’s that crossed Blossom Street, adjacent to Sainsbury’s supermarket and for cyclists leaving The Crescent. He also referred to the conflicting movements of cyclists and vehicles at the Micklegate/Queen Street/Blossom Street/Nunnery Lane junction and to the need to reduce the number of traffic lanes approaching this junction to allow proper provision of cycle lanes. He also referred to problems cyclists encountered at the Mount approach to the city where cyclists felt less secure and he suggested the laying of runners on the cobbles to enable cyclists to get to the front of the bus queue. He stated that Local Members were opposed to any closure of Micklegate Bar and suggested that alternative approaches should be examined including intermediate routes.

This report presents the results of the first stage of the Blossom Street Multi Modal Study. The study was commissioned to investigate options for improving the Blossom Street/Queen Street/Micklegate and Nunnery Lane junctions together with the enhancement of the streetscape of Blossom Street between this junction and its junction with Holgate Road.

Members are asked to receive a report at a future meeting describing potential options detailing how they would satisfy the key requirements.

Consideration was given to the following options:

Option 1 - accept the principal that the Blossom Street / Queen Street / Micklegate/Nunnery Lane junction should be altered and the streetscape of Blossom Street between this junction and its junction with Holgate Road should be enhanced to improve the accessibility and safety for all road users, particularly pedestrians and cyclists. The alterations and enhancements to be considered will have an impact on the operation of the junction and congestion to varying degrees. Subject to this, scheme options should be presented to a future EMAP for their relative benefits/disbenefits to be considered by Members in order to decide on a preferred option for further evaluation, consultation and detailed design.

Option 2 - reject the principal.

Advice of the Advisory Panel

That the Executive Member for City Strategy be advised to

(i)                 Note the report and its Annexes;

(ii)               Note that the Blossom Street/Queen Street/ Micklegate/Nunnery Lane junction may be altered and agree in principle that the streetscape of Blossom Street between this junction and its junction with Holgate Road should be enhanced to improve the accessibility and safety for all road users, particularly pedestrians and cyclists.

(iii)             Note that any alterations and enhancements to be considered will have an impact on the operation of the junction and congestion to varying degrees.

(iv)              Request Officers to undertake full consultation with residents, traders and road users in the Micklegate area before proceeding further with any design work which would limit access via Micklegate Bar and that the results of such consultation be reported back to the EMAP.

(v)                That Officers be asked to more fully consider the options for diverting cycle movements away from this junction (for example, by providing more direct routes linking to the Railway Station).

(vi)              Receive a further report from Officers at a future EMAP meeting describing potential options and how they satisfy, as far as is practicable, the key requirements.

Decision of the Executive Member for City Strategy

RESOLVED:That the advice of the Advisory Panel be accepted and endorsed.

REASON:            The study confirmed that current facilities for pedestrians and cyclists are less than ideal, evidenced by the number of accidents that have occurred in the past five years. Accepting the principal that the Blossom Street / Queen Street / Micklegate / Nunnery Lane junction should be altered and the streetscape of Blossom Street between this junction and its junction with Holgate Road should be enhanced, particularly and ultimately deciding on an option to address the issues as far as is practicable should improve safety for all road users, pedestrians and cyclists.

Consideration was given to a report which presented the results of the first stage of the Blossom Street Multi Modal Study. This study had been commissioned to investigate options for improving the Blossom Street/Queen Street/Micklegate/Nunnery Lane junction and to enhance the streetscape of Blossom Street between this junction and its junction with Holgate Road. The aim was to improve accessibility and safety for all road users, particularly pedestrians and cyclists whilst taking in the requirements of the city’s Air Quality Management Plan.

Consideration was given to the following options:

Option 1 - accept the principal that the Blossom Street / Queen Street / Micklegate/Nunnery Lane junction should be altered and the streetscape of Blossom Street between this junction and its junction with Holgate Road should be enhanced to improve the accessibility and safety for all road users, particularly pedestrians and cyclists. The alterations and enhancements to be considered will have an impact on the operation of the junction and congestion to varying degrees. Subject to this, scheme options should be presented to a future EMAP for their relative benefits/disbenefits to be considered by Members in order to decide on a preferred option for further evaluation, consultation and detailed design.

Option 2 - reject the principal.

Members welcomed the report but expressed concern at suggestions made in relation to possible restrictions to access to Micklegate. They confirmed that they would not support this aspect of the scheme before full consultation with residents, traders and road users had been undertaken.

The following points were raised by members:

·        Hazards involved in right and left turns onto Blossom Street;

·        Cycling provision required improvement on Blossom Street;

·        Questioned alternative cycle route from the Crescent to the station car park;

·        Need to regularise the Holgate Road junction;

·        Need for crossing points to be sited where they were most required;

·        Possibility of inking these proposals to the footstreets report;

·        Possibility of using traffic signals, in advance of the Bar at the Micklegate junction with Blossom Street to assist cyclists;

Members went onto confirm that there was still work to be carried out on all the points raised and to the knock on effects in surrounding areas and on air quality. In view of the concerns raised the Panel gave the following amended advice

Advice of the Advisory Panel

That the Executive Member for City Strategy be advised to

(i)                 Note the report and its Annexes;

(ii)               Note that the Blossom Street/Queen Street/ Micklegate/Nunnery Lane junction may be altered and agree in principle that the streetscape of Blossom Street between this junction and its junction with Holgate Road should be enhanced to improve the accessibility and safety for all road users, particularly pedestrians and cyclists.

(iii)             Note that any alterations and enhancements to be considered will have an impact on the operation of the junction and congestion to varying degrees.

(iv)              Request Officers to undertake full consultation with residents, traders and road users in the Micklegate area before proceeding further with any design work which would limit access  ...  view the full minutes text for item 49.

This report presents the output of traffic modelling recently undertaken, to refresh the modelling previously undertaken as part of the Foss Basin Transport Implications report, in order to confirm the need for James Street Link Road Phase 2 and determine the optimum time for the construction of the short remaining eastern section.

Members are asked to await the outcome of negotiations with the developer prior to receiving a further report on the financial and legal implications.

Consideration was given to the following options:

  Option 1 - Pursue the developer’s signing of the Agreement requiring him to construct the remaining southern section of Phase 2 (P2S). Under this option, the Council is expected to make a contribution from the Local Transport Plan allocation for enhancing the minor access road that would have otherwise been constructed, to the desired standard for the link road.

If the developer decides not to proceed with the development (and the Council revokes the Planning Permission) then proceed with Option 2.

Option 2 - When the outcome of negotiations with the developer is known a further report on the financial implications is submitted to EMAP for a decision to progress the commissioning of the remaining stages of the design programme so that P2S can be considered for inclusion in the 2009/10 capital programme.

Advice of the Advisory Panel

That the Executive Member for City Strategy be advised to

(i)                 Note the report and its Annexes;

(ii)               Await the outcome of negotiations with the developer and when they are known, a further report on the financial and legal implications be submitted to a future City Strategy EMAP meeting for a decision to be considered on:

·      Pursuing the developer’s signing of the Agreement requiring them to construct the remaining southern section of Phase 2 (P2S)

·      Authorising the commissioning of the remaining stages of the design programme to enable P2S to be considered for inclusion in the 2009/10 capital programme.

Decision of the Executive Member for City Strategy

RESOLVED:That the advice of the Advisory Panel be accepted and endorsed.

REASON:            Themodelling undertaken for the short remaining southern section of James Street Link Road shows that it would enhance the performance of Phase 1 and relieve congestion on several roads in the Foss Basin area of the city now and in the future. The initial financial assessment showed that this should be constructed as soon as possible to generate the most benefit. The Council also needs to be clear of the position and that of the developer regarding the development of the site off Layerthorpe through which the Link Road is to run, in order for it to reach a decision as to whether the developer or the council should fund the construction of the final section of the link road and when it should be constructed.

Members considered a report which presented the output of traffic modelling recently undertaken, to refresh the modelling done as part of the Foss Basin Transport Implications report, in order to confirm the need for James Street Link Road Phase 2 and determine the optimum time for the construction of the short remaining eastern section.

The report also presented several recommendations for progressing the design and construction of the short remaining southern section of Phase 2 (P2S), in order to secure best value for the Council.

Members stated that they welcomed the recommendation which would assist traffic problems at Heworth Green and the tendency of driver to undertake illegal u turns. With reference to Phase 1 of the scheme, reference was made to difficulties faced by local residents owing to the lack of dropped kerbs between Lawrence Street and Morrison’s supermarket.

Members also referred to the reference, in the report, that legal comments were awaited on the implications for securing the developer’s signature on the Section 106 Agreement or land purchase/revocation of planning permission, if the developer did not decide to develop the site. Officers confirmed that no decision notice had yet been issued for this site as the developers were re-examining their options but it was anticipated that they would come back with alternative proposals.

Consideration was then given to the following options:

  Option 1 - Pursue the developer’s signing of the Agreement requiring him to construct the remaining southern section of Phase 2 (P2S). Under this option, the Council is expected to make a contribution from the Local Transport Plan allocation for enhancing the minor access road that would have otherwise been constructed, to the desired standard for the link road.

If the developer decides not to proceed with the development (and the Council revokes the Planning Permission) then proceed with Option 2.

Option 2 - When the outcome of negotiations with the developer is known a further report on the financial implications is submitted to EMAP for a decision to progress the commissioning of the remaining stages of the design programme so that P2S can be considered for inclusion in the 2009/10 capital programme.

Advice of the Advisory Panel

That the Executive Member for City Strategy be advised to

(i)                 Note the report and its Annexes;

(ii)               Await the outcome of negotiations with the developer and when they are known, a further report on the financial and legal implications be submitted to a future City Strategy EMAP meeting for a decision to be considered on:

·      Pursuing the developer’s signing of the Agreement requiring them to construct the remaining southern section of Phase 2 (P2S)

·      Authorising the commissioning of the remaining stages of the design programme to enable P2S to be considered for inclusion in the 2009/10 capital programme. ^1.

Decision of the Executive Member for City Strategy

RESOLVED:That the advice of the Advisory Panel be accepted and endorsed.

REASON:            Themodelling undertaken for the short remaining southern section of James Street Link Road shows that it would  ...  view the full minutes text for item 50.

This report advises Members of the receipt of a petition from residents requesting that formal cycling facilities be provided on Crichton Avenue and the actions that are currently underway to investigate the provision of such facilities.

Advice of the Advisory Panel

That the Executive Member for City Strategy be advised to

(i)                  Note the content of this information report;

(ii)                Note that Officers will report back to the EMAP meeting in Spring 2009 with proposals for the inclusion of this scheme in next years programme;

(ii)        Request Officers to respond to the residents responsible for putting the petition together.

Decision of the Executive Member for City Strategy

RESOLVED:That the advice of the Advisory Panel be accepted and endorsed.

REASON:  (i)  To inform members of the work currently underway in relation to the petition.

    (ii)     To inform the petitioners of the ongoing work.

Consideration was given to a report, which informed the Panel of receipt of a petition from residents requesting that formal cycling facilities be provided on Crichton Avenue from Burton Stone Lane, on both sides of the carriageway, to the junction of Crichton Avenue and Wigginton Road. The report also detailed actions, which were currently underway to investigate the provision of such facilities.

It was reported that as part of the recent “Cycling City” bid an orbital cycle route concept had been developed which would enable cyclists to travel along either traffic-free or lightly trafficked routes to transverse the city without having to go anywhere near the more heavily-trafficked city centre. This orbital route would use existing infrastructure, where available, but would also necessitate the infilling of gaps at various points along its length.  One such gap was the length of Crichton Avenue, which would link any provision on Kingsway North with Sustrans’ Foss Islands Path.  As the orbital route formed a key part of the Cycling City project this proposal would be given a higher priority than it might have previously.

Members questioned whether these proposals could be included in next years programme if a report was not to come back until Spring 2009.

Advice of the Advisory Panel

That the Executive Member for City Strategy be advised to

(i)                  Note the content of this information report;

(ii)                Note that Officers will report back to the EMAP meeting in Spring 2009 with proposals for the inclusion of this scheme in next years programme;

(ii)        Request Officers to respond to the residents responsible for putting the petition together. ^1.

Decision of the Executive Member for City Strategy

RESOLVED:That the advice of the Advisory Panel be accepted and endorsed.

REASON:  (i)  To inform members of the work currently underway in relation to the petition.

    (ii)     To inform the petitioners of the ongoing work.

This report advises Members of the results of consultation undertaken on proposals to introduce cycle facilities on Water End from Clifton Green traffic signals to the junction of Salisbury Road.

Members are asked to approve the implementation of cycling improvements as detailed in option one of the report.

Members considered the following options:

Option One – implement the proposals as shown in Annex A of the report;

Option Two – make any changes to the proposals that Members consider   necessary;

Option Three – no cycle improvement measures to be implemented.

Advice of the Advisory Panel

(i)                 That the Executive Member for City Strategy be advised to approve Option One, to implement the proposals as detailed in Annex A of the report;

(ii)               That Officers undertake a separate examination of the problems reported in relation to traffic leaving the city wishing to turn left into Water End, turning left at the traffic lights rather than using the slip road onto Water End thereby causing additional congestion.

Decision of the Executive Member for City Strategy

RESOLVED:That the advice of the Advisory Panel be accepted and endorsed.

REASON:            These proposals will provide significant improvements for cyclists on Water End, and contribute to the aims of the Council as a Cycling City.

Members considered a report, which advised them of the results of consultation on proposals to introduce cycle facilities on Water End from Clifton Green traffic signals to the junction of Salisbury Road.

It was reported that proposed cycle improvements for Water End would form an important part of the orbital cycle route around the city and would immediately link up with existing cycle facilities west of the Salisbury Road junction with other cycle routes starting in the Clifton area. The proposed route would also connect with the existing on-road cycle lanes along Clifton Road and Bootham.

Officers had found that the main problem in providing improvements was the relatively narrow carriageway width, which cyclists had to share with heavy flows of traffic. Following feasibility work it had been found that the best arrangement would be for westbound cyclists to be on-road and eastbound off-road.

Consideration was also given to the following documents circulated at the meeting:

• Email from Cllr Simpson-Laing welcoming the scheme and requesting that a pedestrian crossing with a DDA compliant island was included at the junction with Salisbury Road and Water End.
• Letter from CTC North Yorkshire, commenting on the proposals.
• A3 plan of the proposed scheme.

Officers confirmed that the pedestrian crossing would be DDA compliant with tactile paving.

Some Members expressed concern at the proposal to reduce the current two-lane approach to the traffic signals at Clifton Green as they felt that it could lead to traffic relocating to other routes to bypass queuing traffic. Members also referred to existing problems with traffic leaving the city wishing to turn left into Water End, turning left at the traffic lights rather than using the slip road onto Water End causing additional congestion.

Members considered the following options:

Option One – implement the proposals as shown in Annex A of the report;

Option Two – make any changes to the proposals that Members consider   necessary;

Option Three – no cycle improvement measures to be implemented.

Advice of the Advisory Panel

(i)                 That the Executive Member for City Strategy be advised to approve Option One, to implement the proposals as detailed in Annex A of the report; ^1.

(ii)               That Officers undertake a separate examination of the problems reported in relation to traffic leaving the city wishing to turn left into Water End, turning left at the traffic lights rather than using the slip road onto Water End thereby causing additional congestion. ^2..

Decision of the Executive Member for City Strategy

RESOLVED:That the advice of the Advisory Panel be accepted and endorsed.

REASON:            These proposals will provide significant improvements for cyclists on Water End, and contribute to the aims of the Council as a Cycling City.